The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hit a brick wall when its Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) of 1966 (5 U.S.C.§ 552) lawsuit requesting detailed documents on GPS tracking procedures was rejected by the U.S. Department of Justice.

I. GPS Tracking is Back

The issue of GPS tracking has been a contentious one. In some high profile incidents federal agents, state police, or local police have attached GPS trackers to citizens’ cars and used the continuous tracking as incriminating evidence. While law enforcement agencies contend that GPS surveillance is a powerful tool for fighting crime, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) clearly thought otherwise, deciding unanimously (U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259; PDF) that planting GPS trackers on citizens' vehicles generally is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

Following the January ruling, the FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann provoked ACLU scrutiny when he spoke at a February law enforcement convention in San Francisco, suggesting that other forms of location tracking were arguably legal.

While not specifically mentioned, one such form of tracking would be to seize citizens' cell phones or request records from mobile carriers in order to gain a record of locations based on tower pings. Such tracking has only been used in a handful of cases nationwide, but is growing in use.

GC Weissmann also suggested that boats and other types of vehicles may be fair game for tracking as his interpretation was that the SCOTUS prohibition was narrow, only covering GPS tracking on cars.

The FBI argues that it may still be legal to use GPS tracking on boats.
[Image Source: Ron Niebrugge]

He also makes reference to a pair of memos, detailing how tracking was to be carried out.

II. ACLU Gets Non-Answer From DOJ

In the wake of those comments the ACLU filed suit to obtain those memos, arguing that their release would make clear whether the FBI and other DOJ agencies are actively pursuing such forms of location tracking, and what the rules are (e.g. whether a warrant is required).

The DOJ gave the ACLU the memos this week, but they were almost entirely redacted, leaving little useable information. The sweeping redactions were justified in a note from the DOJ that cites the stipulation that FOIA requests can be redacted to prevent the release of information that would aid criminals.

In a blog post Catherine Crump, an attorney for the ACLU, blasts the DOJ memos, writing:

The Justice Department’s unfortunate decision leaves Americans with no clear understanding of when we will be subjected to tracking — possibly for months at a time — or whether the government will first get a warrant.

Privacy law needs to keep up with technology, but how can that happen if the government won’t even tell us what its policies are?

The DOJ release the FBI memos, but it redacted most of the details in the documents.
[Image Source: Iceni]

Given the DOJ's relative non-response it appears that the DOJ and ACLU will continue to square of in federal court or possibly in another Supreme Court case.

The ACLU's position is clear -- warrantless tracking is a danger to Americans' freedoms.

Yeah, but who is supposed to stop everything and say the Government is over reaching? The people can't and the Government is the guilty party. The only recourse would be revolution but that's not going to happen soon/yet by any means.

I believe the estimate was 40 Million gun owners(seems low to me) say even 10% of that number has the will to do what is necessary when the time arrives that's a very large Army until that time get politically active try and exact change peacefully.

not to say your wrong, but i saw something along the lines of 80 million gun owners with over 300 million legally owned firearms in country.

when the revolution happened, it was something like 3% of the pop. fighting, with another 10% supporting with supplies and resources. those numbers may not be 100% accurate but even so 3% of todays population is only 9 million people, even without air support, tanks and other heavy weaponry, thats a formidable militia. IF it is at least somewhat organized. not to mention how many combat veterans who have retired after serving in iraq/afghanistan, who would most likely not side with the govt.

do not get me wrong, i long for a PEACEFUL REVOLUTION, another civil war/revolution COULD substantially weaken our country for at least a short period of time. also i am against violence unless absolutely necessary. my hope is we can resolve this through our political system, sadly though those hopes grow dimmer everyday.

Agreed! Things would have to get much worse in order to awaken the sleeping lion. The point being people should not fool themselves we as a society are not immune to these types of uprisings we are so divided that I am not sure if something better could be put in place.I think the best approach would be to have state governments seize power back from the federal Government, fire everyone in every branch Legislative ,Executive and judicial (barring existing politicians from ever serving again), dissolve all federal agencies temporarily or permanently migrating the function of those agencies to individual states including tax collection, throw out all legislation related to those agencies along with all legislation related to granting non constitutionally defined powers to each branch of government such as executive privilege. After the dust settles we as a people of which our government is derived from; would hold a continental congress with representatives from each state that would then recreate the federal government in the limited role the creators of constitution originally imagined. If this can be done peacefully and with honest intent then so be it..otherwise we do it the way Thomas Jefferson imagined.

quote: Things would have to get much worse in order to awaken the sleeping lion.

Well, considering the way this nation is elected with more and more people being dependent on government for their well-being and security (especially single mothers and single women), I'm not so sure the lion could ever be woken up again. There comes a tipping point where the majority wants entitlements and so-called security in exchange for liberty.

We are very close to that tipping point. The fact that Obama was re-elected with a failed first four year domestic record (more people on government assistance, more people in poverty, more people on long term unemployment at the end of his first term than when he was elected in 2008) says it all. He promises people things, and they want to be provided with such things. This nation is in serious, SERIOUS trouble.

while i completely understand your point, i pointed out that only 3% of the population actually fought in the first revolution, with 10% supporting with supplies and what not, so even if the majority of the population becomes beiberized and snookified and all that crap pervades their thinking, we few patriots still have a chance. not to mention at this point at least 3% of our population have served in the military at one point with another .45% currently in service. and i believe that a majority of those serving would be for a proper revolution. as for ammohunt, what you describe for 99.999% is what i dream lol. peaceful back to basics. in my personal opinion, i think the feds should stick to national transportation and national defense, as i am pretty sure the states can handle everything else, and the feds, in a limited way, should make keep checks on the states interactions, making sure california and new york do not immediately revert to their current form, at least as far as the constitution is concerned. everything else is fair game as per the tenth amendment. lol that is all for now.

Very good point however as you know what you described is completely unsustainable when their government saviour can't afford to protect them or feed them then chaos ensues shortly after ala Greece. A complete mess i think is an inevitability lets pray that level heads can bring reasoned order out of the muck. i personally am a cynic though; human nature rarely generates something as great as what the original architects envisioned for this country America was a complete anomaly. Humans appear to want to be enslaved...

Correct, the advantage given to the current government through those who receive entitlements will quickly disappear once there is no more money to hand out. Once the rich have been stripped of their wealth, and companies move to other countries to avoid excessive taxes that will be needed to replace the missing rich, there will be no more money to hand out and promises only satisfy for a very short time. Let's only hope that we are taken over from forces from within nstead of some other country taking advantage of our dilemma.

quote: Humans appear to want to be enslaved...

I don't think they want to be enslaved, I think it is actually worse. They have a total aversion to personal responsibility and want everything done for them to the point of giving up their freedoms in order to avoid those responsibilities.

The saving grace here though is that for most if you take away the assistance, they will take on the responsibility because they do not want to do without. At least a majority will, there will always be some who completely refuse and suffer rather than take up that responsibility. Once people have to take up those responsibilities you will see them become more involved in running this country again. That is why this country became as great as quickly as it did, at that time everyone HAD to support themselves otherwise they died, and with a society built on the backs of that caliber of citizen can't help but be strong. In contrast a society which has the majority of its citizens putting forth the least amount of effort possible will be a very frail society.

Failed according to whom? The Far Right nutjobs? Obama won re-election because he inherited a severe recession, 2 wars, housing crisis, banking crisis, etc from the previous administration in which, we are slowly pulling ourselves out of the recession, jobless numbers have fallen, we are out of 1 war and winding down the 2nd war, housing crisis and banking crisis averted, though I think a lot of bankers should have gone to jail and all of this with a do-nothing Republican-led House. If that was a failure, I hate to see where you think we should have been.

The numbers of jobs under the current Obama the last four years has been a whole lot more impressive than the whole eight years of the previous administration job numbers. Blaming the current administration for the failings and residue left over from the previous administration is what the Far Right Nutjobs have been foisting upon an easily fooled group of people that believe that crap.

I believe that those people who like to believe the crap they are being spoonfed, instead of thinking, must have a racist streak within themselves, that they can't come to grips that a Black Man can accomplish more than a White Man can. That's why a certain group of people have to keep devaluating what this administration has done and calling him not like US, or claiming that he wasn't born in the US, or that he isn't like us or that he is a Muslim and not an American.

The current administration is far from perfect, but it is a whole lot better than what has happened in the 8 years under the previous administration.

Bingo and it is a sad time when most of the population forgets what the true purpose of the 2nd amendment was. The "10 rounds is all you need to hunt" argument truly shows just how ignorant these people are.

It wasn't to ensure I could hunt a animal, it was to arm the people against the tyranny of an out of control central government. To use the acts of a few mentally ill people to further reduce the potency of one of the most important concepts our our Constitution shows you just how far this country has fallen.

One can argue that the 2nd amendment applied more to State militias than the individual, and I could appreciate that point of view. But there isn't a legit historian that wouldn't agree that it's sole purpose was to insure the sovereignty of the people from the federal government. It is a last resort tool to prevent tyranny.

Don't get me wrong I'm not locked up in my basement with a tin foil hat, we are no where near that point yet, but it is scary to see either side try to reduce the power of the 2nd Amendment. Either it shows pure ignorance of the ideals this nation was founded on, or it is the first step in disarming the public. Either way ... scary...

Exactly and well said! do people really believe that the architects of America were so stupid as to leave out a "for the purpose of hunting" clause in the second amendment if that's what then intended?

Regular citizens possessing the same or near similar firearms of the enemy at the time tipped the war in our favor. This fact was not lost on people like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington but is lost on the average knee jerk reacting American submersed in the insulating reality of our times.

quote: egular citizens possessing the same or near similar firearms of the enemy at the time tipped the war in our favor

Most of those who came from the mountains and wilds already had rifles which were far superior to the smooth bore muskets that the British army used. They style of warfare we learned while fighting the French and Indian War also vastly aided our victory in the Revolutionary War. During that time the average American had better weapons and better knowledge of warfare on our terrain than their enemy. Now days we would not have such an advantage over our current military. Though the average citizen would have one advantage over the current government in that the rank and file soldier would have second thoughts when it came to carrying out orders to fire on their own fellow citizens. Our military leaders will follow orders, but they also know the ultimate power rests in the people and that the bureaucrats in charge are easily replaced if things fall apart.